The
first such meeting was held in the Washington D.C.-area
offices of the State Department`s Refugee Processing
Center on July 31.

What? You missed the notice of the meeting in the
Federal Register?

Well, you didn`t expect them to advertise in the
Washington Post, did you?

But
VDARE.COM was there!

And
we can reveal the exciting things State learned:

The American
"public" wants more, many more refugees and
MORE MONEY for government-dependent non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that sponsor and support them!

At
least, that`s according to the 20 or so NGOs,
faith-based organizations (FBOs), community-based
organizations (CBOs), Community Development Corporations
(CDCs), human rights organizations (HROs), voluntary
agencies (VOLAGS), federal commission members and
immigration lawyers who did somehow hear about
the July 31 meeting and showed up.

That`s particularly interesting because, according to
State Department sources, South Korea has never
been approached about
taking more refugees from the North. Yet such
refugees are granted automatic citizenship in South
Korea.

Given its relationship and proximity to the mad
dictatorship, South Korea can hardly hang out banners
inviting northerners to flee south. (Only moneymaking
"nonprofits" in the U.S. can afford to do that.) But its
silence is an implicit welcome worth more than the word
of the gaggle of NGOs purporting to speak for the
American public.

The American "public" is very angry about the denial
of
any refugee petitions
from the former Soviet Union!

It
was of course to prevent U.S. officials from using
discretion in the case of Soviet Jews that Congress has
been quietly renewing the
"Lautenberg Amendment,"decreeing that they be
treated as refugees.

The numerous
Vietnamese illegal immigrants in the Philippines should
be sent forthwith to the U.S.!

Of
course, most of these Vietnamese are not and never were
refugees. And they could go home – but an attempt to
repatriate them to Vietnam in the mid-nineties was
halted by bad press and the condemnation of the Catholic
hierarchy.

If
this idea is adopted, watch for a sudden
expansion—again—of this Vietnamese "refugee"
population in the Philippines as they can reasonably
expect to be sent to the U.S.

More automatic refugee slots should be opened up to those
who can show
family relations with refugees already here!

About 5,000 or so
unaccompanied children arrive in the U.S. annually
and are detained by DHS. Some 40% are deported or return
voluntarily. But some, deemed a flight risk or possibly
criminals (they can be as old as 16), are kept in secure
facilities.

But
here is one story apparently not fit to print: according
to Ken Totta of the federal
Office of Refugee Resettlement, the non-secure
detention facilities in which most are held "like
a boarding school," with one staffer for 6 juveniles
and a program of movies and concerts.

Increasingly, these minors are entering the over-taxed
U.S.
Foster Care system. VDARE.COM prediction: we will
find cases where the relative in the U.S. who originally
summoned the child ends up being paid by Foster Care to
raise it!

There`s a move to bring over a group of "Lost Girls"
to join the
"Lost Boys"—the gang of alleged child soldiers
and others from the
Sudanese Civil War who were imported a couple of years
ago!

In
fact—this is a VDARE.COM
exclusive— the Lost Girls are already on
their way! But quietly, without the press fanfare that
accompanied the Lost Boys.

The
official reason for the covert nature of this operation
is not concern over U.S. citizen reaction. (Which
seems to be spreading and has actually stopped
resettlement plans in
Kansas,
Massachusetts and
South Carolina.) This official reason: concern over
negative reaction in the tribal communities in Africa
from which the "Lost Girls" are being taken.

You
see, they too have a culture with its own expectations
for its young. Any overt plan to bring over, say, 3,500
Lost Girls to match up with the Lost Boys would disquiet
tribal elders. Who knows, the elders might try to hide
the girls from refugee workers.

(Even more likely, the realization that there is a plan
to raid the camps for young women would spur
marriages of convenience made to hitch a ride out of
the camp on the U.S. refugee program. As they say in all
parts of the globe where the U.S. refugee resettlement
program operates: "marriage is a means of
transportation.")

The
U.S. Commission of International Religious Freedom
was particularly busy airing its views at the July 31
meeting. This commission, established by Congress, is
intended to bring religious freedom to the persecuted
around the world. But, failing this, it will assist
in bringing the "religiously persecuted" to the U.S.

The
commission offers its services to any organization
needing help in framing a religious persecution argument
for aspiring asylum entrants.

Indeed, it turns out that U.S. visa officers overseas
who suspect a visa applicant may overstay his visa may
not categorically deny that applicant—if the visa
officer also has reason to believe that the applicant,
once admitted to the U.S., might apply for asylum on the
basis of "persecution." All such applicants must be
referred to the U.S. refugee program.

This
Commission, which its "Immigration Counsel" Mark
Hetfield described at the July 31 meeting as a
"federal agency independent of the executive branch,"
whatever that means, is basically another federal
entity at the service of the refugee and immigration
lobby. Some, if not most, of its members come straight
from the ranks of refugee resettlement contractors. (Hetfield
himself was formerly
Washington Representative of the
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.)

Obviously, the July 31 meeting was a charade. And the
State Department knows that.

But
these refugee consultations should not yet be dismissed.
Nor should the State Department be blamed for
everything. I am convinced that there are elements in
State that want the meetings to succeed. And the refugee
industry, as powerful a lobby as it is, ultimately
remains the
Frankenstein creation of Congress and its laws. It
could be
uncreated anytime.

A
State Department spokesman has defended the meeting as a
flawed first attempt, which will be improved upon with
time, especially as it relates to getting input from the
public.